For Instructors: Reporting a Case
Should you encounter a situation appearing to involve some manner of academic dishonesty, the HEC generally recommends first communicating your concerns to the student directly and in a timely way. (If this conversation happens in person, the HEC recommends taking notes and perhaps following up with an email to the student confirming what was discussed.) If, after that exchange, you remain concerned about the nature and/or level of the alleged academic dishonesty, the HEC asks that you either consult the Judicial Liaison or submit the Comprehensive Reporting Form.
Once the Judicial Liaison (JL) has determined that the report should move forward as a case for the HEC to hear, you should continue to collect any further assignments from the student as outlined in the class schedule. However, do not enter a final grade for the course until the hearing is complete and the finding has been determined.
The HEC process adjudicates allegations of academic misconduct, but it is not a legal process and does not adhere to such standards. The expectation is that careful consideration will be given to the available materials, including written and verbal communications, to assess whether it is more likely than not that the alleged academic misconduct took place.
The process does not expect individual faculty members to conduct an extensive investigation, nor are students expected to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that they have not acted dishonorably. Reasonable questions will be asked of all parties, who are expected to provide full and truthful information as they know it. Where available, they will provide documentation to support their statements. Such documentation will typically include:
- Written statements detailing the event from the student, the reporting instructor, and any witnesses (such statements should include details such as times and places of events, the assignment instructions, reasons for doubt about the assignment, relevant conversations or correspondence that may have occurred. etc.)
- Course materials (e.g. the syllabus, the relevant assignment and instructions, the relevant grading guidelines or rubric, the work in question, etc.
- Additional items might include source materials for allegations of plagiarism, email correspondence, user data from Canvas, etc.
* Please note: AI detectors are not currently reliable enough to provide definitive evidence that AI use has occurred. Therefore, while reports from such detectors may be included in the case documents, they will not be considered sufficient by themselves–they cannot stand alone as proof of wrongdoing.
For more resources on AI, syllabi, and more, please see CAT’s central hub of resources for all WFU instructors.